Em Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:42:40 +0100 Federico Schwindt <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Diff aside looking at the code my impression is that the VTCP_filter_http() > function is meant to be compiled in always so erroring out if it's not > supported might be wrong here, or at least not when errno is EOPNOTSUPP/ > multiple times. People without it must have a way to find it out. The old way was not including any code and avoid it at all, but then we had a code that behaves differently according to the system which seems better than not giving any clues. > On 4 Sep 2015 1:35 pm, "Federico Schwindt" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Did you see my second diff? :) > --- SNIPPED --- Yes, I read your second diff. I agree with you that it would be better to kill the accept_filter param ifdef guards to keep it avaliable in every system, but I don't think it's a good idea to break the old behavior because people might be expecting it. That's why I suggested the TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT detection to make the code more portable instead of just looking for __linux. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
